- 22 -
capacity of the turbines necessary to produce the
contracted power? In other words, the rule does not
require the technical details of the generating
property to be spelled out.
MR. PACKWOOD: The Senator from Hawaii is correct.
MR. LONG: The Senator’s understanding is correct.
132 Cong. Rec. 15028 (1986).
The court held that, "in the power supply context * * *
generating equipment/property is ‘readily identifiable with’ the
written supply contract where the contract specifies (1) the
primary energy source; and (2) the total generating capacity."
United States v. Commonwealth Energy Sys., supra at 60. In
reaching that result, the court rejected as "unduly narrow" the
Government’s interpretation of the statute and conference report
"as a manifestation of congressional intent to limit the
transition tax credit provision to property explicitly designated
in a supply contract." Id. at 58.
b. Discussion
In deciding whether to grant or deny respondent’s motion, we
find it unnecessary to resolve the parties’ conflicting
interpretations of the phrase "readily identifiable with".
Rather, we find that the description contained in the pre-1986
documents of the equipment to be utilized in installing and
maintaining the Livonia cable system is sufficiently detailed for
us to determine whether any particular property is "specifically
described" in such documents. Thus, assuming arguendo that
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011